Microsoft: Please Mister FTC, don't delineate what's "legal" so we won't get sued if we find a novel/barely legal/grey area way of selling/otherwise profiting from privacy data.

My answer to them:Please Mister FTC, if they don't have my permission, in writing, to use my data, for every client they sell it to, it should be illegal.Each time a client wants to use my data, I should know, and should explicitly allow it.

Here's the thing: Microsoft looks out for Microsoft. That's how capitalism works, and it really does help people when capitalism is applied correctly. But having high-level capitalists telling the state what to do with regards to protecting the citizenry is not a correct application of capitalism.

Microsoft needs to look out for Microsoft, the government needs to look out for the safety of the common taxpayers.

The "invisible hand of the market" was a quasi-religious substitute for god in a time when atheistic concepts were crude and relatively unevolved from their theistic heritage. Those who had broken free from the chains of pious dogma found themselves lonely - perhaps man could divine an intelligent design for society instead? One so perfect that it must surely improve everyone's lot.

I'm not Capitalism's largest fan... But thats not quite true either. True capitalism doesn't necessarily even mean shares, or shareholders would exist. If there was a much more fragmented market, and large monopolies and ultra massive conglomerates were stomped out, then the free market would move closer to helping the social good.

Basically Capitalism is a tool, and it could be used for good or ill. The government exists to constrain it, and subjugate it to the common good. Or at least strike a balance

The correctness of the rest of the comment hinges on the definition of "correctly". If there is a government helping to avoid market failures (mostly by limiting the power of monopolies, punishing outright lying and protecting property rights), capitalism does help everybody, as they can focus on the work they do best (comparatively), and exchange the product of that work with others.

Well, what Microsoft is saying here is that FTC might not know how long the data needs to kept for things to work.

If this is the case, the software is completely broken and need to be redesigned or scraped.

Besides from a user point of view Microsoft does not provide any services where where storing of privacy data are needed at all(Apply to Google too). Obviously this does not include a regular customer database, as this is not what the FCC discuss in this case and such databases have already some regulation in place. What FCC discuss in this case is user profiling/spying.

Dude I just gotta ask: How much does MSFT pay you to shill? Is it an every two week kinda thing, or do you get paid quarterly? How are the benefits? Because from your post you are obviously getting paid because NOBODY kisses that much ass for free!

As for TFA, can we choose none of the above? I don't trust MSFT, and I sure as hell don't trust the government, what with their shredding the constitution practically on a daily basis, so it is kinda a rock and a hard place here. Can we hear from the EFF on this? Because frankly so far they seem to be the ONLY ones who give a shit about privacy anymore.

It's simple: If $COMPANY's business model can't cope with not being allowed to store user data for $DURATION then it's too bad for the company. Citizen interests should always trump corporate interests and privacy is in the interest of the citizen. If MSFT, GOOG or any other company relies on being able to mine you for years that doesn't mean everyone has a sacred duty to uphold their business model just because it exists. It's really like with the record companies - they can't comprehend that their busines

You really think they understand computers and IT better than Microsoft? After all, Microsoft has been in the business since the 80's.

Argument by authority. I could argue that Microsoft isn't really an authority, nor very much interested in consumer privacy, and that in their epochs (30 years...) of business they have made plenty of mistakes. I have as much faith in Microsoft as I do in the FTC (not much), but at least the FTC is (supposedly) looking out for me, while MS only cares about MS.

I agree, they should be looking at Google and Facebook. But, remember, Microsoft is trying to get into the same markets as them now. They aren't j

It makes some sense to limit the use of privacy-intruding data, regardless of the collecting agency.

We all know that Google collects data - that's their main business, but what is more disturbing is all those cookies that are used to track us and make statistics from. They are really useful to see if someone likes certain car brands and which type of porn that's preferred. So statistical collectors can probably figure out that there is a 25 year old male who drinks Jack Daniels and Coca Cola, living in Texa

...they should be forced to retain online user data for exactly as long as the shortest amount of time they generally retain their own employees' emails.

If Microsoft is anything like Intel and the other big boys, that would be ~2 weeks for inboxes. Wanna keep the web-hoovered data for longer? They can then expose themselves to more legal liability by extending their corporate email retention policies similarly. I'm willing to wager that they really won't want to do that, but it's generally win-win - longer

CIA wants them to store it for eternity. FTC wants them to get rid of it ASAP. Make up your mind, The Government!

There is no need to wonder whether the FTC rules would apply to the CIA or FBI or IRS or any other government agency. And don't bother worrying about it either, citizen, unless you have something to hide...

Dont worry the Office of Naval Research and Air Force Office of Scientific Research have your blogs, web 2.0, twitter ect, covered via the Social Computing Data Repository http://socialcomputing.asu.edu/pages/about [asu.edu]

CIA wants them to store it for eternity. FTC wants them to get rid of it ASAP. Make up your mind, The Government!

Yes, the idea that the "gubbermint" is not some massively interconnected single entity which is hell bent on controlling all your lives and actually is a group of loosely connected group of small individual entities with their own needs and agenda's is uncomfortable to some people.

Back in the bad old days of apartheid, South African's white minority advocated that foreign companies follow a policy known as "constructive engagement" - it's pretty much analogous to what Microsoft is asking the FTC to do now with regards to user privacy.

"Don't punish us, because we really REALLY intend to be good in the long run..."

As if Google fucking doesn't. You're a joke and your post shows that it bites your ass that the company you love to hate the most actually is a step up on a company that you desperately try to keep pushing on people as doing "no evil."

Do they? Evidence please. I've been using Google services for a very long time, and haven't ran into any obvious privacy problems. I've been using Microsoft services for longer, and am perplexed on how I need to send them my data once a month just so they can sure that I'm still not a criminal.

Google has a decent track record of keeping customer privacy on the forefront. MS isn't trustworthy in the slightest. I don't trust either of them, but I trust Google slightly more.

Privacy problems at Google? How about Youtube ditching the existing user accounts (holding your bookmarks hostage), and encouraging you to automatically link it to any other Google-based services that are logged in? What about Picasa continually insisting that you need to create a profile that shares and updates it with friends?

In the end you can dart around these problems, but they sure like to continually throw them in front of you. Sometimes it's not clear what they're up to until you're halfway thro

Yahoo did much the same, as does any other corporation who acquires another property. It makes sense for them to roll things into a single registration/user account framework, and I really don't have much of a problem with that. Granted, I'm not a big Youtube user (I watch, but don't contribute), and thus I really don't have a stake in the issue. Its like when Yahoo rolled Flickr into its crappy account system, it was a pain, but ultimately silly. I did have a stake in Flickr (I contributed), and hated

You complete turd, you have absolutely no evidence for what you state.

Google is the biggest shit corporate spyware technological empire with the most amount of user data as compared to any government (let alone software) agency out there.Do you have absolutely any idea how the hell they are the biggest money maker - far FAR bigger than Microsoft!

Google sell user data, user stats, user analytics and behaviour patterns, not to mention their web analytics data to any piss ant out there, just to make a tiny bit more money to their collosal empire..

Hmm, speaking of having no evidence.... Hypocrisy FTW!

I feel like taking the time to argue with you would be a waste, because you're clearly just spewing garbage without any rational basis for what you're saying.

Australia tried to explain data retention via the European Convention on Cybercrime http://www.zdnet.com.au/data-retention-not-blanket-but-targeted-339311987.htm [zdnet.com.au]
"...under the convention, law enforcement agencies would approach an ISP with a certificate, requiring information pertaining to an individual to be retained until the agency can get a court order or warrant."
Retention keeps your interesting ip safe and usable until a "court order" can be requested at some point.
Soon they will just keep it all.

Doesn't Sorbanes-Oxley Act already prescribe how much and how long companies should keep electronic records? That is what they told me when our company implemented a bone-headed password change process.

I can be in favor of the gov protecting consumers, but I don't get what is so inherently evil about these companies storing the data that I give them for a long time.

Typically, when I let them have the data I figured they would, at the very least, use it to pick which ads to show me and I really don't mind that.

In my opinion, the real privacy problems lie elsewhere, e.g.- Selling or sharing my data without proper consent.- Collecting it without my consent.- 'Forcing' or tricking me into allowing them to collect my data. For example, if I agree to iTunes terms of service for the iPhone then I'm agreeing to let Apple collect data about my precise location. To me these are too unrelated, and I don't really have any choice.

So, I think this issue is how they collect it and what they do with it, not how many years they store it.